Could a county council member’s spouse serve on South Carolina’s local election board?

Plain-English summary

A Spartanburg County delegation member asked whether the spouse of a county council member or chair could serve on the county election commission or voter registration board. In February 2002, the AG said the relationship alone did not necessarily bar the appointment. He found no law expressly forbidding that service, even assuming the commission had jurisdiction over the spouse’s election.

The opinion identified other limits. It cited a statute restricting commission and registration-board members from political management, campaigns, contributions and certain fundraisers in elections under their jurisdiction, and said a member could not manage or conduct the spouse’s campaign. It also quoted an ethics rule about using office to influence decisions where an immediate family member had an economic interest. Specific ethics questions were referred to the State Ethics Commission.

Currency note

This opinion was issued in 2002. Subsequent statutory amendments, court decisions, or later AG opinions may have changed the analysis. Treat this page as historical context, not current legal advice. Verify current law before relying on any specific rule, deadline, or remedy mentioned here.

Historical summary

Election and registration board members

The AG found no automatic disqualification based solely on marriage to a council member. He said the member could not take part in managing or conducting the spouse’s campaign and noted other statutory election restrictions.

County officials and families

The letter distinguished eligibility for board service from conduct restrictions. It left particular applications of the ethics law to the State Ethics Commission.

Common questions

Did marriage to a council member automatically disqualify a board member? A: The AG said no; he found no express law imposing that blanket bar.

Could the board member help run the spouse’s campaign?
A: The opinion said no, citing the election-board political-activity restriction.

Did the AG decide every potential ethics conflict?
A: No. He directed specific ethics-law questions to the State Ethics Commission.

Background and statutory framework

The letter applied prior office advice on spouses in election commissions. It discussed a campaign-activity restriction cited in the source with irregular spacing as “§7-13-7 5,” and quoted §8-13-700(B) on governmental decisions involving immediate-family economic interests. The irregular citation is left as printed in the source text; this page does not infer its normalized number.

Citations and references

• §8-13-700(B): family economic-interest rule quoted by the AG.

Official title

Asking “whether or not a spouse of an elected county council member and/or county council chairman can serve on either the county voter registration board or the county election commission.”

Requester

The Honorable Bob Walker, Delegation Vice Chair, Spartanburg County Legislative Delegation

Source

• Landing page: https://www.scag.gov/opinions/opinions-archive/february-13-2002/
• Original PDF: https://www.scag.gov/wp-content/uploads/2013/04/02feb13walker.pdf

Original opinion text

The State of South Carolina

OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL
CHARLIE CONDON
ATIORNEY GENERAL

February 13, 2002

The Honorable Bob Walker
Delegation Vice Chair
Spartanburg County Legislative Delegation
Room 1210, 366 North Church Street
Spartanburg, South Carolina 29303

Re:

Your Letter of January 30, 2002

Dear Representative Walker:
In the above-referenced letter, you indicate that the "Spartanburg County Legislative Delegation is requesting an opinion as to whether or not a spouse of an elected county council member and/or county council chairman can serve on either the county voter registration board or the county election commission." In a prior opinion request, this Office was asked whether an "election commissioner can serve in that capacity if a family member (spouse) is elected to public office." In responding to this query, this Office was" .... unable to locate a statute that would require an election commissioner to resign if his or her spouse should be elected to public office .... " See OP. A TTY. GEN. (Dated October 12, 2000). For purposes of the referenced opinion, it was assumed that the commissioner serves on a commission with jurisdiction over the spouse's election. Similarly, I can find no law which expressly forbids the spouse of a county council member from serving on a voter registration board. Therefore, it is my opinion that the spouse of a county council member is not necessarily precluded from serving on either the county voter registration board or the county election commission. There are, however, certain statutory provisions which may be triggered when a situation such as you describe exist. S. C. Code Ann. §7-13-7 5 provides that no member of a county election commission or voter registration board may participate in political management or in a political campaign or make a contribution to a candidate or knowingly attend a fundraiser held for the benefit of a candidate over whose election the member has jurisdiction. Therefore, a member of the voter registration board or an election commissioner is prohibited from taking part in either the management or the conduct of his or her spouse's political campaign. Further, the Ethics Reform Act of 1991 provides that no "public official, public member, or public employee may make, participate in making, or in any way attempt to use his office, membership, or employment to influence a REMBERT C. DENNIS BUILDING

•

POST OFFICE Box 11549

•

COLUMBIA,

s.c. 29211-1549

•

TELEPHONE: 803-734-3970

•

FACSIMILE: 803-253-6283

The Honorable Bob Walker
Page 2
February 13, 2002

governmental decision in which ... a member of his immediate family ... has an economic interest
.... "See S.C. Code Ann. §8-13-700(B). Any specific questions concerning the application of the Ethics Reform Act should be addressed to the State Ethics Commission.

l

This letter is an informal opinion only. It has been written by a designated Assistant Attorney General and represents the position of the undersigned attorney as to the specific question asked. It has not, however, been personally scrutinized by the Attorney General and not officially published in the manner of a formal opinion.

L

I
Assistant Attorney General
DK.A/an

I
I

~

I